AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ  (Read 10881 times)

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 500
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 11:27:47 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #175 on: June 18, 2018, 12:02:19 AM »

The regional planning council (NCTCOG) approved the 2045 mobility plan on Thursday, and IH 345 is not included in the document. Below is a link to the document with the maps, and I also checked the project listing, and verified IH 345 is absent.
https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf

A feasibility study was slated to be underway this year; I'm assuming that's still true. My perception is that a plan to sink the freeway into a trench is the most likely outcome of the study. If IH 345 was a priority item, I would expect it to be listed on the asset optimization map, since it is not a new or expanded facility.

I don't know if the absence of anything related to IH 345 means anything, but I see the possibilities as
1. (Most likely) They don't want to include it in the long-term plan until there is a firm and approved plan for the corridor, and it would be added to the plan in one of the periodic updates if/when a firm plan is devised, possibly in the next major update in 5 years.
2. Due to funding constraints, they don't plan to do anything with the corridor through 2045, which means the elevated freeway has plenty of life remaining.
3. Not including anything leaves the door open for removal. (But I would expect that there will be accompanying projects for a replacement arterial street, which would need to be added to the plan.)

I think the only thing that can be firmly concluded is that, at the current time, nothing is imminent in terms of deciding on a different future for the freeway.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 04:41:46 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #176 on: June 18, 2018, 02:22:27 AM »

Fingers crossed it gets expanded and sunken.
Logged

Guysdrive780

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 148
  • Just another guy

  • Location: Dallas, TX
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 11:50:20 AM
    • Drive on Transportation
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #177 on: June 18, 2018, 07:28:18 AM »

The regional planning council (NCTCOG) approved the 2045 mobility plan on Thursday, and IH 345 is not included in the document. Below is a link to the document with the maps, and I also checked the project listing, and verified IH 345 is absent.
https://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2045/documents/4JUNE2018MAPPKT.pdf

A feasibility study was slated to be underway this year; I'm assuming that's still true. My perception is that a plan to sink the freeway into a trench is the most likely outcome of the study. If IH 345 was a priority item, I would expect it to be listed on the asset optimization map, since it is not a new or expanded facility.

I don't know if the absence of anything related to IH 345 means anything, but I see the possibilities as
1. (Most likely) They don't want to include it in the long-term plan until there is a firm and approved plan for the corridor, and it would be added to the plan in one of the periodic updates if/when a firm plan is devised, possibly in the next major update in 5 years.
2. Due to funding constraints, they don't plan to do anything with the corridor through 2045, which means the elevated freeway has plenty of life remaining.
3. Not including anything leaves the door open for removal. (But I would expect that there will be accompanying projects for a replacement arterial street, which would need to be added to the plan.)

I think the only thing that can be firmly concluded is that, at the current time, nothing is imminent in terms of deciding on a different future for the freeway.
NCTCOG really just looks out for the countries and cities in its service areas. I-345 not being there means that NCTCOG doesn't think there is a priority. I can try and get more information on what they are planning to do because Dallas Still has it listed on the City Line Plan plus we are still talking about it back at the office. So let me get more infromation and I will come back to you.
Logged
I run the DOT Youtube Channel, Part time Worker for TXDOT, College Student studying Civil Engineering (Traffic Engineering). Please Keep in mind, I do not represent TXDOT and all opinions I say are my own and not TXDOT's

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1666
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 06:11:09 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #178 on: June 18, 2018, 10:39:03 AM »

I'm a little surprised US-287 between Fort Worth and Ennis (from I-20 diagonally down to I-45) isn't shown on the map completely filled in blue as a freeway priority. OTOH, there are upgrade projects for segments of that highway currently in progress or in the works. The last 4.5 miles of US-287 leading up to I-45 (from TX-34 on East) are under construction for freeway conversion. The US-287/I-45 interchange needs at least one modification: the SB US-287 to NB I-45 ramp is a tight 35mph cloverleaf loop. That should be replaced with a new flyover ramp. There is at least one short stretch of freeway conversion planned on US-287 between Midlothian and Waxahachie, but the plans don't show filling in the entire gap between the freeways of both towns. Work is being done at the intersection of TX-360 and US-287. Hopefully the stretch of US-287 between Mansfield and Ennis will be brought up to Interstate quality sooner than later.

North of Fort Worth US-287 really needs to be brought up to Interstate quality to at least the TX-114 interchange in Rhome. The mobility plan only shows upgrades going about halfway there. Upgrading it all the way up to Decatur would be even better. TX-114 from Roanoke to just West of Texas Motor Speedway is in the upgrade plan. Again, extension to US-287 would be better. If they could get the freeway extended to West of the big NW ISD school complex (and its traffic lights, etc) that would be a big plus. TX DOT needs to at least get TX-114 from to US-287 set up as a "staged facility" ready to upgrade rather than waiting around for development to swallow up the corridor.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 11:32:54 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2169
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 04:25:06 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #179 on: June 18, 2018, 03:08:51 PM »

Unless they have a funded project to alter the highway, I think they should just leave Interstate 345 alone.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #180 on: June 21, 2018, 12:56:48 AM »

Unless they have a funded project to alter the highway, I think they should just leave Interstate 345 alone.

Which is what effectively will happen for the near future; the parties involved (NCTCOG, TXDOT, and the Federal agencies with a piece of the action) are simply "kicking the can down the road" regarding what to ultimately do with I-345 -- likely claiming that there wasn't enough funding to take any action (teardown, reconstruction, etc.) in the next several years.  What will happen, IMO, is that activities to expand US 75 capacity between Dallas and the state line will be watched closely -- and if implemented fully, will likely make any teardown/"boulevardization" a moot point.  Reconstruction such as trenching/capping might just be touted at that time as simply another segment of corridor improvement to correspond with the activities to the north -- and one that addresses many of the concerns of city core residents without permanent corridor disruption and/or truncation.     
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 04:41:46 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #181 on: June 21, 2018, 06:40:38 PM »

What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldn’t that basically guarantee this never becomes a Boulevard?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #182 on: June 21, 2018, 07:36:04 PM »

What are the chances I-45 gets extended to the state line? Wouldn’t that basically guarantee this never becomes a Boulevard?

Being TX, one can never count anything out (who saw I-2 coming 6 years ago?).  That being said, even with a completed facility to the state line (but needing some upgrades in any instance) the chances of TXDOT requesting an I-45 extension without some indication from OK that they were going to reciprocate with something extending at least to I-40 aren't all that great.  Of course, there's no guarantee that the boulevard option wouldn't be pursued even with a I-45 extension; political pressure could move it to a multiplex with I-20/635 around the east side; I don't see a city-core "detour" via a I-30/35E/Woodall "loop" as a viable option simply because of capacity issues.  Nonetheless, the dollar cost of a teardown and complete surface revamping for a surface boulevard concept might not be terribly different than a trench/cover concept -- it would all depend upon the final design for either option -- and how attractive each would be.  Personally, I like an "open square" idea with space for possibly a plaza or even a park with some street area bordering it -- a lot better than I like a multilane boulevard that has to be crossed by local pedestrians to get from one side to the other. 

But then I'm not one who'll have to live with the decision; just hoping that misapplied ideology doesn't guide the process!
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 222
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #183 on: June 22, 2018, 12:58:22 PM »

"U.S. 75" even just north of "Interstate 345" is a Trenched Highway, with a subway under it. Interstate 345 spans many things that would need to be grade separated. It makes sense to have one long bridge. This is similar to Purcell Lexington Bridge which is very long. It spans a rail road, and a river. The river is usually not very wide, but they decided to make one long bridge over every thing. Guthrie has a similar long bridge over a rail and river next to each other. And in the center of Denison, there are two affected areas be cause of a rail yard. "U.S. 75" spans the rail yard, but the U.S. 69 bridge over the rail yard seems longer than necessary be cause there are only two or three rail tracks. But that was the easiest thing to do. It works and they did not care about aesthetics. However, those bridges have been replaced with "prettier" ones, which could be done for "Interstate 345". I don't know how much of the highway can be trenched with an optional park on top of it.

State Highway 366 (A State Highway) has a park on top of it. If they can dig a trench and build a park for a state highway, they can do the same thing for The Unfinished Corridor.

I can not find any bodies of water, but DART would require be moved even more below ground. As for the other rail line, I recommend it also be moved below ground. (I do not like when roads go under rail. Adding more road lanes, which happens much more often compared to adding rail tracks, will require a new rail bridge whether more rail is added or not.) Or perhaps a Truss Rail Bridge can be added. Interstate 30 Interchange will have to also be moved below ground.

Toll this section of The Unfinished Corridor ("Interstate 345"). Perhaps toll it now, even before reconstruction happens. Lots of other projects are tolled. The Lewisville Bridge is tolled. An alignment around Austin and El Paso is tolled. And really, Interstate 35E should be re-rebuilt and tolled. Any other projects ... New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380, should be tolled. Just toll every thing.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 01:02:27 PM by In_Correct »
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6865
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 09:45:36 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #184 on: June 22, 2018, 12:59:13 PM »

New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.
Logged
Clinched, plus NH 111A (central)

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A(eastern),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Bold = new

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 222
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:17 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #185 on: June 22, 2018, 01:00:27 PM »

New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

That should not be a problem. "Interstate 345" Is A Bridge.

The other needed alignments I mentioned would have to be State Highways.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 01:03:25 PM by In_Correct »
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6037
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: June 13, 2019, 05:35:52 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #186 on: June 22, 2018, 01:07:52 PM »

New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

*cough* US 412 *cough*
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1963
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:03:59 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #187 on: June 22, 2018, 01:11:57 PM »

New alignments of U.S. 277, U.S. 82, U.S. 380 should be tolled. Just toll every thing.

US routes can't be tolled unless they're toll bridges.

*cough* US 412 *cough*

With the exception of tolled bridges, you can only toll US routes if there is a reasonable toll-free alternate that is still on the US route system. Both tolled sections of US 412 in Oklahoma follow this rule: the Cimarron Turnpike has US 64, and the Cherokee Turnpike has US 412 Alternate (formerly Scenic).
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86west 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #188 on: June 22, 2018, 03:25:22 PM »

With all the tolling talk being bandied about, if push comes to shove regarding financing of a long-term solution for I-345 (whether a part of an extended I-45 or not) if a solution such as cut-and-cover is selected (which won't be cheap by any means!), I wouldn't be surprised to see the costs at least partially addressed by OTR tolls over that segment; the I-30/35E/Woodall "loop" to the west would constitute the required free alternative.  As far as tolling US 75 north of there, it would likely have to be in the form of express lanes rather than full-facility tolling; the complaints from the 'burbs would be deafening otherwise. 
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9153
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 10:53:17 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #189 on: September 06, 2018, 05:20:14 PM »

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+dallas+freeway+removal&view=detail&mid=C3DB6C45E68E36ECC53EC3DB6C45E68E36ECC53E&FORM=VIRE
I just saw this and apparently some local group is pushing for the removal of I-345 saying its crumbling and separating the city.

Forget the amount of traffic that uses it daily.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #190 on: September 06, 2018, 06:10:42 PM »

^^^^^^
The video seen via the above post is over 3 years old at this time; this thread isn't even that old, so what you're hearing on it is (a) "old news" and (b) essentially a screed rather than a look at the various alternatives available re I-345, which have been rather thoroughly discussed upthread.  Whenever there's a major city undergoing changes, often in the nature of "gentrification", there's invariably one group or another who want to eliminate area freeways; this is really no different.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 07:22:35 PM by sparker »
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #191 on: September 06, 2018, 07:13:40 PM »

There are still a few hangers-on to the notion that the elevated freeway is a wall or barrier to economic and sociological movement in that part of Dallas, which is completely ridiculous.  There are apparently others that seem to think there are development possibilities by getting rid of I-345.  Occasionally social media, online sites, and traditional media locally have articles or postings about the possibilities, not really realizing the sheer amount of traffic that would have to go in other directions (and not all along Cesar Chavez or Good-Latimer) in the absence of the freeway.  TxDOT has other projects and plans closer to the front burner than anything regarding redoing/redirecting/removal of I-345 at the moment.  Not to mention the real possibility that enough could be done to promote the conversion-to-interstate of US 75 north of downtown to as faraway as OK (which many that aren't roadfans or economic development types don't seem to be aware of).  To me, that alone would preclude any long-term push to completely get rid of I-345.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2202
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 08:39:40 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #192 on: September 06, 2018, 07:26:44 PM »

Is there a reason why this highway is 345 and not a northern extension of I 45?

Nexus 5X

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #193 on: September 06, 2018, 07:38:27 PM »

There are still a few hangers-on to the notion that the elevated freeway is a wall or barrier to economic and sociological movement in that part of Dallas, which is completely ridiculous.  There are apparently others that seem to think there are development possibilities by getting rid of I-345.  Occasionally social media, online sites, and traditional media locally have articles or postings about the possibilities, not really realizing the sheer amount of traffic that would have to go in other directions (and not all along Cesar Chavez or Good-Latimer) in the absence of the freeway.  TxDOT has other projects and plans closer to the front burner than anything regarding redoing/redirecting/removal of I-345 at the moment.  Not to mention the real possibility that enough could be done to promote the conversion-to-interstate of US 75 north of downtown to as faraway as OK (which many that aren't roadfans or economic development types don't seem to be aware of).  To me, that alone would preclude any long-term push to completely get rid of I-345.

Just the notion that the freeway segment they want to eliminate may be considered as a part of an even longer new Interstate trunk designation would likely evoke an apoplectic reaction from the "teardown" activists.  It may even be seen as "doubling down" on the sort of situation they abhor -- insult added on to their perceived injury!  But, OTOH, once the activists realized that they'd now be dealing with a regional rather than simply a neighborhood issue, consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #194 on: September 07, 2018, 05:14:37 AM »

Is there a reason why this highway is 345 and not a northern extension of I 45?

I've never understood it.  I guess they feel it's too short to sign it as I-345.  It is signed NB as US 75 and SB as I-45, but why they don't 'officially' do it one or the other, I'm not sure.  The exit numbering keeps going NB until Woodall Rodgers, but not the designation.  I guess it's the old-school "can't have an interstate end anywhere but another interstate" thing, although exceptions for that now abound.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #195 on: September 07, 2018, 05:20:04 AM »

...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5596
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:22:18 AM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #196 on: September 07, 2018, 04:51:13 PM »

...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.

Probably right about the "naysayers"; likely their ranks are mostly political activists, possibly with a few friendly technical types as consultants.  But engineers have been layering underground facilities within cities for at least the last century; look at S.F., with surface LR on Market Street, a subway version of LR directly below it, and BART commute rail underneath it all.  Not to mention NYC, where subway lines have been ducking each other -- as well as the city utilities -- for as long as there has been the proverbial "hole in the ground", as the song goes!  A trenched I-345 (45?) down 25 feet or so wouldn't stop DART from crossing it at minus 45-50 feet!   
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 04:41:46 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #197 on: September 07, 2018, 09:52:02 PM »

...., consideration of an alternate concept to a simple removal (cut/cover, etc.) may emerge as a longer-term acceptable solution. 

I wouldn't mind a US 75-north-of-downtown-style trench or a deck park like over Woodall Rodgers.  Some of the naysayers have come out and said the 2nd DART line that is to be a subway-style downtown would be a problem if the freeway is trenched, but they are probably the same people that don't want it at all.  It's probably staying for a while, since TxDOT has had inspectors going over the undersides of the freeway deck for the last couple or so years looking for bridge problems/issues, and I guess fixing the stuff they run across.
They're full of shit. A trenched or even tunneled freeway wouldn’t be a subway killer. The subway will just be a little deeper in this area.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1666
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 06:11:09 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #198 on: September 08, 2018, 02:48:41 AM »

The main thing is that's a subway killer is cost. It's ridiculous how much it costs to build a subway, much less a modest light rail line (or even trolley service) built at-grade.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 04:41:46 PM
Re: Dallas IH 345 study RFQ
« Reply #199 on: September 08, 2018, 10:33:55 PM »

The main thing is that's a subway killer is cost. It's ridiculous how much it costs to build a subway, much less a modest light rail line (or even trolley service) built at-grade.
if you want something nice and done right, you have to pay for it. IMO, it’s time for Dallas to invest in a real transit system with heavy rail. But you aren’t wrong about the enormous expense. That’s just something Dallas residents will need to decide if they want to pony up the money for. But any excuse of this freeway being built below grade preventing that is bs.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.